saac

7 minutes ago, andrew s said:

It seems to me we are all using "nothing" or "nothingness" to mean differt things.

Is it empty space,  a state of consciousness or whatever floats your boat. 

Not only that "looks like" is also being interpreted in different was.

Linguistic philosophers would be pulling their hair out. Not necessarily a bad thing in my book.

To steal their mantra it depends what you mean by...

No wonder I abandoned philosophy as mostly worthless.

Regards Andrew 

I think it's fair game to think of nothing in either context - physical or of the mind "consciousness".  Seems to me that a state of nothing cannot exist in our universe which is "physical" after all -  there is no place for it, no means for it to exist.  That leaves it confined to the mind. I'm happy with the notion that it can exist in the mind and in abstract such as mathematics*. As to what it looks like (OP's question), it's one of those things we intuitively know but can only describe it as the absence of anything as you did earlier. 

* The trick of course is not to give "nothing" free reign in the mind  

Jim 

11 hours ago, Moonshed said:

Hi Jim,

I agree with that comment that some things that are real cannot be seen, I have no problem with that, be it some esoteric mathematical formula or gravity, they are real but cannot be seen.

The problem here is that I have never discussed that point, it arose from a misunderstanding by @vlaiv of my reason why “nothing” can’t be seen, I have never mentioned anything at all about something that cannot be seen, that’s just a misunderstanding and I hope I have now clarified that point.

I am also off to bed now, way past my bedtime.

Cheers

Keith

Cheers Keith, I was really commenting on your reference to Andrew S comment in your previous post 

 “Nothing by definition doesn't look like anything.”

I was trying to be clever by saying well if by definition nothing doesn't look like anything, and anything having a quality, then by extension the look of nothing also has a quality, that being the absence of anything. Exactly what that quality is - I have no idea  

Jim 

1 minute ago, Moonshed said:

Err, no Jim, just the opposite, it cannot be seen for the reasons I have stated, that to be seen requires an OBJECT to emit or reflect light, therefore “nothing” cannot be seen and therefore cannot be visually described. You can of course describe nothingness in a number of other ways.

Cheers

Keith

But as vlaiv suggested there are things which cannot be seen yet are real, he offered Pi. It's a relationship, it cannot be seen yet it can be named and defined. We could argue if Pi exists of course by our will or if it is recognised, or even required  by the universe! Continuing with my half baked philosophical, what about thought or love. Sure, some will argue these have a biochemical nature (electrical impulse) but a milenia of poets, dreamers and fools would suggest that these  have a greater part to their character; unmeasurable and unseen perhaps, but certainly not nothing!  

I'd agree with you only if we were to define the opposite of nothing  - something  - as that which can be seen (seen by the EM spectrum). But I think that is a bit restrictive, limiting our search for nothing to the physical. I wonder if what we are saying is that anything that emerges from the standard model cannot be nothing - it (the standard model) being everything.  So perhaps nothing does not exist in the universe. It is confined to an idea, a thought which we have conjurned from err something  

I'm going to bed now!

Jim 

19 minutes ago, Moonshed said:

I think the answer is in the question “What does nothing look like?” In order to “look like” anything requires that an object emits or reflects light to enable us to see it. Now that being the case then “nothing” cannot exist if it can be seen. The answer then becomes clear, it is impossible to see nothing therefore we cannot say what it looks like, it cannot exist if we can see it in order to make a comparison.

@andrew s made a better fist of it with his very succinctly worded explanation 

“Nothing by definition doesn't look like anything.”

Yes Andrew, that sums it up nicely 

 

So it does have a look, a quality, something that separates it from anything else?

Jim 

Thanks for the heads up  

Jim 

24 minutes ago, Franklin said:

Nothingness is like time at the eyepiece under UK skies.

Wow, nothing is expensive !

Jim 

25 minutes ago, DaveS said:

"Nothing shall come of nothing"

Or will it, if we wait long enough !

Jim 

I don't know if this going too off topic but has anybody experienced being in a place, cellar or room, which is totally light tight and dark? I have found the experience just a little unsettling - eyes wide open yet unable to see my hands held in front of my face.  I guess the brain really does not like  what it does not understand. 

Jim 

1 hour ago, vlaiv said:

It turns out that things are not that simple.

Colours like black and white (and red, purple, green, yellow and all other) - are product of our mind.

You don't need all wavelengths of light to induce sensation of white - and interesting thing is - you won't see the same mix of wavelength as being white always. There is no universal white as far as spectrum goes - there is only "white adaptation" of our brains - or mix of wavelengths that our brain adopts as being white at that particular time.

Similarly - black is not absence of light - it is thing of contrast. You need to have something that is white in order to perceive something as black. If you have no reference (in absence of all light) - most people "see" sort of dark gray (see link I provided few posts up).

Then there are "impossible" colours - colours people report seeing that are physically impossible to get with light - yet they are regularly reported and induced in peoples minds.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impossible_color

 

A good example of this is a movie projector or TV  - think about it, especially for a projector which is casting a beam of light, exactly how can it cause black to appear on the screen!  As per vlaiv's explanation above it relies on contrast.  That all said, I think I'm comfortable with black also being considered an absence of reflected light. While noting with interest vlaiv's retinal response info I'm convinced I see black not grey when I close my eyes. 

Jim 

9 minutes ago, Paul M said:

No! You ruined it by accepting it as a concept.  Surely "nothing" can't be defined, as a definition gives it attributes?

I was keeping out of it, as an example of real nothingness. And I've ruined it too!

Damn it we "thunk" it into existence.  

Jim 

Here is my take on it:

Jim 

If you call the first tooth 0 then in a 144 tooth gear, the last tooth would be 143. If you called the first tooth 1 then the last would be 144, or am I not getting what you are meaning   I guess it is a bit similar to compass points 360 and 0. Maybe make it easier and just call it top dead centre  

The single tooth on a worm wheel always makes me smile.  

Jim 

Appeal being considered by National Park Authority. 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-65195945

Jim 

That is cool.  

Jim 

Well I did do a search for one of my old professors Dr Donald Bennet (Dept Mechanical Engineering University Strathclyde).  He was a wonderful chap and famous too - mechanical engineering was his second passion.  Anybody who has any interest in Scottish mountaineering would certainly recognise his name.  He wasn't listed so I may look to see if I can add him.  Just thinking that this would be a wonderful resource Chris for anybody doing research - subject or even just historical or maybe writing a book. 

Jim 

That is cool - no danger of finding me there  

Jim 

20 minutes ago, neil phillips said:

Somebody needs to make optical quality windows. Sounds cheap doesn't it. Wonder how far you could go with that idea. Makes me think of Baaders optical window film

They already have, they are mounted cleverly on a hinge allowing you to swing them out, removing them from the optical train  

Ok I'll get my coat !

Jim 

3 minutes ago, powerlord said:

My mates use it for work power points, etc. And chatgpt too.

I'm suspecting that it will be good at producing infographics.  I find at work that it can be difficult to get the right image for supporting something without it being copyright protected.  In a way this is like having the services of a technical illustrator at hand. 

Jim 

I like that last one. I wonder if the inclusion of "from Mars" in the request is a bit of red herring! I wonder what it would show if you asked for a realistic photograph of Earth through a telescope of (insert configuration) taken from a distance of (insert distance). 

Ok @powerlord you have me hooked, I'll sign up and give it a go. I can see me using it for school work,  making up graphics for powerpoints/information posters. 

Jim  

12 minutes ago, vlaiv said:

To be honest, I'm rather surprised by black hole images.

It's a shame it does not understand the concept of a planet seen thru a telescope.

I suspect, as with the text variant ChatGPT, that framing of the input request is hugely important to the form of the output. 

Jim 

I do share some concern though as with @PeterC65 re negative possibilities.  Certainly wouldn't want to see artificial images being offered as "real" in any field. Particularly important in law, science, medical and a host of other fields to guarantee authenticity. I wonder if any though is being given to tagging such with some form of digital fingerprint - if that is even possible.

That aside, I think these can be captivating images.  @powerlord  I do like the sentient badger , absolutely gorgeous.   It reminds me of the worlds and creations of HG Wells. 

Jim 

5 minutes ago, PeterC65 said:

Interesting, but I'm not sure what the positive use is of this technology. Entertainment I suppose. I can see plenty of negative uses though!

 

I can certainly see a lot of use in the creative industries.  Even just for personal hobby use, making cards, posters, backdrops etc. 

Jim 

Not too shabby at all!   It's a fantastic image Neil.

Jim 

22 hours ago, JeremyS said:

Visited the Whipple Museum for the first time this week. Old school museum - in the best possible way. A few telescopes and other astro stuff. Fir me though, the collection of old chemistry sets was remarkable. Think @JOC would like these

 

 

That photograph of the chemistry set is wonderful. Could you ever imagine any kids toy being advertised today with a kid wearing a shirt and tie as part of the graphics!  That demographic just does not exist anymore; I'd guess they disappeared with Enid Blyton's famous 5 after the lashings of ginger bear and chocolate ran out  

Lovely photographs Jeremy, I'll need to drop in to Whipple Museum if I ever find myself in the area. 

Jim 

You wouldn't get your astronaut badge and you certainly wouldn't get invited back  

Looks like you may get around 10 second before you go unconscious. Death follows after a few minutes!  Get yourself a skateboard, find a really steep hill and go for it - you'll still hurt yourself but you'll enjoy the ride for longer.

ehttps://www.livescience.com/human-body-no-spacesuit 

Jim